10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

[B00Mer]

10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

1. Individuals such as Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann believe that the New Testament should be the law of the land, and that God should guide a president in his or her decisions, not the Constitution.

2. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," while also preserving the right of individuals to worship their own faith. The Christian right believes that Evangelical and Catholic fundamentalism should be, in essence, merged with the government.

3. Candidates such as Newt Gingrich echo a long-term obsession of the right wing: that the court system is "activist" (as in liberal). Gingrich went so far as to say that he would ignore court rulings that he disagreed with, which would violate the three branches of government balance built into the Constitution.

4. The preamble to the Constitution cites to "promote the general Welfare" as one of the six reasons for establishing a nation of laws built upon the foundation of the Constitution. Is there a Republican candidate for office at any level who does not regularly bash the notion of "promot[ing] the general Welfare" of US citizens? The Constitution does not say that is was written to create a society where individuals engaged in mortal financial combat - and the less fortunate were left behind.

5. There are numerous proponents of repealing the 14th Amendment, which outlines who has a right to be an American citizen. One of particular objections of the 14th Amendment is that "anchor babies" - children of non-US citizens born in the US -- are entitled to US citizenship. Interestingly, the 14th Amendment was enacted largely to nullify the pre-Civil War Dred Scott decision which had denied citizenship to slaves, or even freed blacks who were descendants of slaves. Is there a whiff of racism in the right's objection to the 14th Amendment?

6. Then there are those who insist that the United States is a republic and not a democracy in terms of the right to vote. The most current evidence of this is the numerous voter restrictions that Republican legislatures have set up to obstruct minorities, seniors, and students from voting. Most interestingly, this desire to make America into a sort of "House of Lords" government is represented in a movement to nullify the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct elections of US senators by the people.

7. Then there is the Fifth Amendment that guarantees, no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Under the Bush administration, these guarantees were usurped in a post 9-11 fear frenzy. They continue to be further violated even under the Obama administration, which just agreed to the possible suspension of habeas corpus for US citizens under certain circumstances.

8. Article VI of the Constitution forbids a religious test for serving in government. While the removal of this prohibition has not generally been an explicit demand of the right, it has been implicit in the assertions that President Obama as a closet Muslim and in other efforts to attack office holders who do not claim to be saved by Christ. President John F. Kennedy, running for president in 1960 and facing opposition because he was a Catholic, said: "[N]either do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it." Contrary to right winger Christian-firsters, there is no Constitutional requirement to take an oath of office with one's hand on a Bible.

9. The right wing generally supports police powers over the 4th Amendment guarantee that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue." Ask minorities in the US, Muslims, or almost any non-white citizens if they feel protected by the 4th Amendment. whose guarantees have been whittled away over the years by the courts.

10. The Constitution sets up a legal framework in which all citizens - regardless of race, religion, or national heritage - are guaranteed equal treatment under the law of the land. This is equality, in legal theory, at its most distilled essence (of course, it doesn't always apply in practice). This is deeply disturbing to right wingers who believe that the nation was founded as a white republic, with only whites being able to vote. The Constitution enshrines democracy (although it took subsequent amendments to enfranchise women and blacks), and the document and its amendments are a threat to the comfort and power of white privilege.

And that's just the beginning of why the right wing is anti-Constitutional....

source: 10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

 

[TeddyBallgame]

- B00Mer ... It is one thing for you to uncritcally post a ridiculous piece of unmitigated garbage and distortions by some whackjob far left liberal blogger. However, it is quite another for a leading liberal law professor to write an op-ed piece in the liberal bible The New York Times yesterday calling for the total ignoring of the consititution by the lawmakers, the judges and the people.


- Everybody with an IQ bigger than Twiggy's waist size in inches knows that the party which has always played the fastest and loosest with the consititution is the Democratic aka Donkey Party and never more so than under Obama. Likewise, everybody knows that comparatively albeit not absolutely the GOP has been the party of reverence for and adherence to the constitution.

- For those reasons plus having a life plus staying fairly clear of this bastion of liberal lunacy, I did not bother to respond to your ridiculous post yesterday.

- But in case you suffer from the delusion that silence means consent in this case, you would be well advised to read and reflect on the following editorial yesterday by a leading liberal law professor before repeating this claptrap about the GOP as the party that wants to ditch the constitution.

- Otherwise people might think you are an uninformed idiot.

- And we wouldn't want that!
Op-Ed Contributor

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN

Published: December 30, 2012

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.




AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?
Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.
As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?
Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.
No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.
Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation — 150 years ago tomorrow — he justified it as a military necessity under his power as commander in chief. Eventually, though, he embraced the freeing of slaves as a central war aim, though nearly everyone conceded that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to disrupt slavery where it already existed. Moreover, when the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements. (The Southern states were denied representation in Congress on the theory that they had left the Union, yet their reconstructed legislatures later provided the crucial votes to ratify the amendment.)
In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation. In 1954, when the court decided Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Robert H. Jackson said he was voting for it as a moral and political necessity although he thought it had no basis in the Constitution. The list goes on and on.
The fact that dissenting justices regularly, publicly and vociferously assert that their colleagues have ignored the Constitution — in landmark cases from Miranda v. Arizona to Roe v. Wade to Romer v. Evans to Bush v. Gore — should give us pause. The two main rival interpretive methods, “originalism” (divining the framers’ intent) and “living constitutionalism” (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands), cannot be reconciled. Some decisions have been grounded in one school of thought, and some in the other. Whichever your philosophy, many of the results — by definition — must be wrong.
IN the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim by the Constitution’s defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text. Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.
This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.
Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president’s term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor. Nor, finally, should we have an all-powerful president free to do whatever he wants. Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states. There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country.
What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy. The president would have to justify military action against Iran solely on the merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief. Congress might well retain the power of the purse, but this power would have to be defended on contemporary policy grounds, not abstruse constitutional doctrine. The Supreme Court could stop pretending that its decisions protecting same-sex intimacy or limiting affirmative action were rooted in constitutional text.
The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity. And as we see now, the failure of the Congress and the White House to agree has already destabilized the country. Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens. We, too, could draw on these resources.
What has preserved our political stability is not a poetic piece of parchment, but entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences. No one can predict in detail what our system of government would look like if we freed ourselves from the shackles of constitutional obligation, and I harbor no illusions that any of this will happen soon. But even if we can’t kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit.
If we acknowledged what should be obvious — that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions — we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey. It would become apparent that people who disagree with us about the Constitution are not violating a sacred text or our core commitments. Instead, we are all invoking a common vocabulary to express aspirations that, at the broadest level, everyone can embrace. Of course, that does not mean that people agree at the ground level. If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.
If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, is the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience.”



A version of this op-ed appeared in print on December 31, 2012, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.

 

[taxslave]

AS I read it everyone wants to sanctify or change the constitution based on how they feel on a particular issue at a certain point in time. This most probably means that the constitution is working quite well and should be left alone since the majority in government seem more interested in power than doing what is best for the country.

 

[relic]

The difference between christian fundies and any other,loke say muslim,is the name of their god. They'er all dangerous lunitics.

 

[TeddyBallgame]

The difference between christian fundies and any other,loke say muslim,is the name of their god. They'er all dangerous lunitics.

- relic ... Thanks so much for setting me and others straight on this issue! Until now, I had taken the view that Islamic extremists today who believe that everyone else is an infidel and must be converted to Islam or killed, that women are inherently inferior to men and must not be educated or be employed outside of the home and must submit obediently as one of the four or more wives of the devout Muslim man, that killing thousands of non-believers including mainly other Muslims who are too moderate for their tastes will get them a ticket to paradise with 72 (more or less) virgin, that democracy is inherently evil and incompatible with Islam, that Western liberal values and institutions are anthema to Muslim tbheology and must be eradicated and that all Jews and Israel must be cast into the sea were, well, at least a tad worse than say Baptists or other Christian fundamentalists.

- But you have certainly set me straight on this with comprehensive information and incontravertible logic.

- From now on I,too, will be a good secular left wing liberal practising moral relativism, an "if it feels good do it" life style and will not be so bold as to suggest that some religions and some value systems today just might be superior to others and more com[patible with Western liberal values and insitutions. As you say so well, its all the same.

 

[Spade]

O, how we forget the Spanish Civil War, et al. Pity... Anyone else wish to "wash their hands among the innocent"?

 

[taxslave]

- relic ... Thanks so much for setting me and others straight on this issue! Until now, I had taken the view that Islamic extremists today who believe that everyone else is an infidel and must be converted to Islam or killed, that women are inherently inferior to men and must not be educated or be employed outside of the home and must submit obediently as one of the four or more wives of the devout Muslim man, that killing thousands of non-believers including mainly other Muslims who are too moderate for their tastes will get them a ticket to paradise with 72 (more or less) virgin, that democracy is inherently evil and incompatible with Islam, that Western liberal values and institutions are anthema to Muslim tbheology and must be eradicated and that all Jews and Israel must be cast into the sea were, well, at least a tad worse than say Baptists or other Christian fundamentalists.

- But you have certainly set me straight on this with comprehensive information and incontravertible logic.

- From now on I,too, will be a good secular left wing liberal practising moral relativism, an "if it feels good do it" life style and will not be so bold as to suggest that some religions and some value systems today just might be superior to others and more com[patible with Western liberal values and insitutions. As you say so well, its all the same.

Pretty sure the women burned at the stake by fine upstanding christians would beg to differ with you. Probably most of the ones that died during the Spanish Inquisition don't have a whole lot of good to say about christianity either. Nor for that matter the native kids that were butt Fukked by pedophile priests.

 

[Colpy]

10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

1. Individuals such as Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann believe that the New Testament should be the law of the land, and that God should guide a president in his or her decisions, not the Constitution.
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/...asons-the-gop-wants-to-ditch-the-constitution

Baloney. Nothing more than conjecture and BS.

10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

2. The Establishment Clause of the Constitution specifically states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," while also preserving the right of individuals to worship their own faith. The Christian right believes that Evangelical and Catholic fundamentalism should be, in essence, merged with the government.

More Baloney. I have yet to see Congress propose an official state religion, which is the ONLY reference to separation of church and state in the constitution.

10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

3. Candidates such as Newt Gingrich echo a long-term obsession of the right wing: that the court system is "activist" (as in liberal). Gingrich went so far as to say that he would ignore court rulings that he disagreed with, which would violate the three branches of government balance built into the Constitution.

Ahhh....Gingrich wouldn't be the first....Andrew Jackson and FDR were both famous for ignoring the court. You have to remember it is "separation of powers", not all power to the SCOTUS......the executive and legislature are checks on the court's power.

And Gingrich is not the GOP.

10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

4. The preamble to the Constitution cites to "promote the general Welfare" as one of the six reasons for establishing a nation of laws built upon the foundation of the Constitution. Is there a Republican candidate for office at any level who does not regularly bash the notion of "promot[ing] the general Welfare" of US citizens? The Constitution does not say that is was written to create a society where individuals engaged in mortal financial combat - and the less fortunate were left behind.

Now THAT is hilarious!!!

It doesn't mean everyone gets welfare.

It means the Reps do the best they can.............

10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution


5. There are numerous proponents of repealing the 14th Amendment, which outlines who has a right to be an American citizen. One of particular objections of the 14th Amendment is that "anchor babies" - children of non-US citizens born in the US -- are entitled to US citizenship. Interestingly, the 14th Amendment was enacted largely to nullify the pre-Civil War Dred Scott decision which had denied citizenship to slaves, or even freed blacks who were descendants of slaves. Is there a whiff of racism in the right's objection to the 14th Amendment?

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/...asons-the-gop-wants-to-ditch-the-constitution

You might have a point here.....except that they are not all Republicans.....

10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

6. Then there are those who insist that the United States is a republic and not a democracy in terms of the right to vote. The most current evidence of this is the numerous voter restrictions that Republican legislatures have set up to obstruct minorities, seniors, and students from voting. Most interestingly, this desire to make America into a sort of "House of Lords" government is represented in a movement to nullify the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct elections of US senators by the people.

Give me an example................oops!! Didn't happen.

10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

7. Then there is the Fifth Amendment that guarantees, no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Under the Bush administration, these guarantees were usurped in a post 9-11 fear frenzy. They continue to be further violated even under the Obama administration, which just agreed to the possible suspension of habeas corpus for US citizens under certain circumstances.

Absolutely correct....Obama has extended executive power as well......he is worse on civil rights than Bush.

So what does this have to do with the GOP???

 

[Spade]

I don't believe Boomer cares; he's out of town.

 

[damngrumpy]

We have all heard the rantings of Bachman and the statements made by Santorum
Yes they are fundemnalists and they are nuts but they are Americans not Canadians
and that gives me some comfort.
America was an experiment that would keep the country out of the hands of those
religious fundamentalists of all stripes. So far its worked. Even when Newt then part
of the Moral Majority a front organization for groups like the Southern Baptist Convention
and right wing Catholics
The constitution does not suit them because they are not in favour of an open society at
all, they want a religious society. I am not big on religious societies even though I do
believe there is a God. Religious societies are about versions of God.
Oliver Cromwell was a tyrant in Britain he got rid of the monarchy and instituted his
religion into government. Disaster cost him his life and its the reason the monarchy still
exists in Britain.
Now there is a fine Christian Government in Uganda who has seen every monster government
in history. Top of their list in bringing Christ into society? Execution of Gays as soon as they
possibly can. Egypt is turning into a religious state and destroying different view points are at
the top of the list. Iran what a fine upstanding group they are. Even Hitler was a religious
fanatic even though most of it was fundamentalist occult not really Christianity.,
The other thing that should be pointed out here Bachman and some of her followers actually
had or have a clinic to straighten out gays using the scriptures and so on that was an election
issue during her bid for President, Americans are in trouble and some are devoutly misled by
religion but they are not as desperate to actually turn the country over to the fanatical right.

We also see some protest right on this board some ridicule the message with oh this is the
left again. Really the terms Liberal and Left are used in place of the old Communist threat of
a couple of generations ago.
Really this is about polarized politics and the traditional nut cases of left and right parade in front
of the cameras giving everyone in politics a bad name. The Constitution is under pressure in
America not under threat, and a constitution should be under pressure it demonstrates it is working.
why is it that any government that is basically not for the people with extreme ideas wants to change
the constitution that is government's on the right and left. It appears to be the domain of the crazies.

 

[Colpy]

10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution



8. Article VI of the Constitution forbids a religious test for serving in government. While the removal of this prohibition has not generally been an explicit demand of the right, it has been implicit in the assertions that President Obama as a closet Muslim and in other efforts to attack office holders who do not claim to be saved by Christ. President John F. Kennedy, running for president in 1960 and facing opposition because he was a Catholic, said: "[N]either do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it." Contrary to right winger Christian-firsters, there is no Constitutional requirement to take an oath of office with one's hand on a Bible.

s http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/...asons-the-gop-wants-to-ditch-the-constitution

More ludicrous garbage.

There is no religious test, nor any proposal to create one. Enough said.

10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

9. The right wing generally supports police powers over the 4th Amendment guarantee that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue." Ask minorities in the US, Muslims, or almost any non-white citizens if they feel protected by the 4th Amendment. whose guarantees have been whittled away over the years by the courts.

Nothing to do with the GOP. Executive powers have been increased by the Obama administration.....

 

[Spade]

Yep, crypto-fascists in North America has replaced "communist" with "liberal", "Jew' with "Muslim", and "blacks and latinos" - well, they're still "blacks and latinos".

 

[Colpy]

10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

10. The Constitution sets up a legal framework in which all citizens - regardless of race, religion, or national heritage - are guaranteed equal treatment under the law of the land. This is equality, in legal theory, at its most distilled essence (of course, it doesn't always apply in practice). This is deeply disturbing to right wingers who believe that the nation was founded as a white republic, with only whites being able to vote. The Constitution enshrines democracy (although it took subsequent amendments to enfranchise women and blacks), and the document and its amendments are a threat to the comfort and power of white privilege.

And that's just the beginning of why the right wing is anti-Constitutional....

source: 10 Reasons the GOP Wants to Ditch the Constitution

Simply Baloney.

There is a black president..........

The guy that wrote this entire thing is seriously delusional.

 

[damngrumpy]

Yes there is a black President but he was elected by the Black, the Jews the Latinos
and people who were opposed to turning the country over to a bunch of extreme right
wing old white guys from the Augusta Golf and Country Club as it were.
When Rick Santorum became number two on the ticket main stream Americans even
those of moderate faith turned to Obama.
I think there are some serious breaches with sanity on the left as well however the
Democrats have been able to keep them out of the spotlight.
It is without a doubt that some of the right wing extremists want to change the constitution
to subscribe to their lets say odd view of the world.
Bachman in my view is mentally tilted Santorum is not crazy he is just filled with religious
passion that is more in tune with the nineteeth century.
The constitution has done pretty well in America and has stood the test of time. Ironically
there are some things that should change, like tax exemption for churches etc but its
best left alone just in case one group or another hijacks the democratic agenda.

 

[The Old Medic]

Aside from the fact that every "Thesis" proposed by the originator of this thread is completely and utterly wrong, it's a "brilliant piece of fantasy"!

 

[Colpy]

Aside from the fact that every "Thesis" proposed by the originator of this thread is completely and utterly wrong, it's a "brilliant piece of fantasy"!

Exactly.

And so much more concise than my reply.

 

[gopher]

Santorum said God told him to run for the presidency. I guess he must be calling God a liar. As for Bachamnn, she believes there isn't a lie not worth telling.

 

[EagleSmack]

Pretty sure the women burned at the stake by fine upstanding christians would beg to differ with you. Probably most of the ones that died during the Spanish Inquisition don't have a whole lot of good to say about christianity either. .

During the Dark Ages?

Yes there is a black President but he was elected by the Black, the Jews the Latinos
and people who were opposed to turning the country over to a bunch of extreme right
wing old white guys from the Augusta Golf and Country Club as it were.

One of the dumbest, idiotic posts EVER.

Not to mention racist.

Obama doesn't get elected without the white vote.

The constitution has done pretty well in America and has stood the test of time. Ironically
there are some things that should change, like tax exemption for churches etc but its
best left alone just in case one group or another hijacks the democratic agenda.

Oh that's brilliant. Then the Church can have a say in government and supporting candidates with billions. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

 

[petros]

- relic ... Thanks so much for setting me and others straight on this issue! Until now, I had taken the view that Islamic extremists today who believe that everyone else is an infidel and must be converted to Islam or killed, that women are inherently inferior to men and must not be educated or be employed outside of the home and must submit obediently as one of the four or more wives of the devout Muslim man, that killing thousands of non-believers including mainly other Muslims who are too moderate for their tastes will get them a ticket to paradise with 72 (more or less) virgin, that democracy is inherently evil and incompatible with Islam, that Western liberal values and institutions are anthema to Muslim tbheology and must be eradicated and that all Jews and Israel must be cast into the sea were, well, at least a tad worse than say Baptists or other Christian fundamentalists.

- But you have certainly set me straight on this with comprehensive information and incontravertible logic..

If you replace muzzie with haredi, mormon, small c christian it reads the same.

 

[Highball]

When Americans refused to crown Richard Nixon as King they decided to drop back and wait awhile. They still are waiting aren't they?